The State Wrote Itself Into The Vice-Chancellor's Appointment. That Law Is Gone.
Himachal Pradesh amended its universities law to make the Vice-Chancellor's appointment turn on the aid and advice of the State Government. A Division Bench has struck the amendment down.
The Court held the amendment beyond the legislative competence of the State and declared it ultra vires the Constitution and the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. Rules 2, 3 and 4 of the 2026 Rules, being repugnant to Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, were declared illegal and void ab initio. The advertisements inviting applications for Vice-Chancellor at both universities were quashed, and a fresh process was directed.
- The words that did it were ‘on the aid and advice of the Government’, inserted into Section 24 of the principal Act.
- UGC Regulation 7.3 governs the eligibility criteria and the composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee.
- The Chairman of the UGC gets a nominee, and persons connected with the university are excluded.
- Void from the start, not merely set aside going forward — the Rules were held void ab initio.
- Court
- High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla
- Bench
- Justice HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, Justice HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN SHARMA
- Citation
- CWP No. 4259 of 2026 with CWP No. 5087 of 2026
- Case
- CWP No. 4259 of 2026 with CWP No. 5087 of 2026
- Decided
- 27 August 2026
- Outcome
- Both writ petitions allowed; amendment and Rules struck down, advertisements quashed
What the State had done
The State amended the principal Act, removing and substituting Section 24 so that the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor would be made on the aid and advice of the State Government.
Rules 2, 3 and 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Universities of Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Rules, 2026, notified on 6 January 2026, followed. Advertisements of 26 February 2026 invited applications for the post of Vice-Chancellor at Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur, and at Dr Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni.
Why the amendment fell
Subordinating the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor to the aid and advice of the State Government violates the UGC Regulations, 2018.
The amendment was therefore beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature, and was declared ultra vires the Constitution and the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, and struck down.
Rules 2, 3 and 4 of the 2026 Rules, being repugnant to and in direct conflict with Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, were likewise beyond competence, illegal and void from the beginning.
What must happen now
The consequential advertisements at both universities were quashed and set aside.
The State and the Chancellor were directed to initiate and complete a fresh process expeditiously, in the interest of the universities.
That process must follow Clause 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 strictly — its eligibility criteria, the composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee including the nominee of the Chairman of the UGC, and the exclusion of persons connected with the university — with a nominee of the ICAR added if desired.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Can a State decide who becomes Vice-Chancellor?
Not by subordinating the appointment to its aid and advice. The Court held such an amendment ultra vires the UGC Act and the Constitution.
What happens to the advertisements already issued?
They were quashed, and a fresh process was directed strictly under Clause 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018.
Challenging a State law that cuts across UGC Regulations
- Put the amended section beside the UGC Regulation and show the conflict in terms, not in effect.
- Frame it as legislative competence, not merely illegality; that is how the Rules fell with the Act.
- Challenge the consequential advertisement in the same petition, or the selection proceeds while the law is litigated.
- Ask for a positive direction on the fresh process, naming the regulation the Committee must follow.
Source. High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, CWP No. 4259 of 2026 with CWP No. 5087 of 2026, decided 27 August 2026 by Justice HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, Justice HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN SHARMA. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in